Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I like dramatic irony.
Yes X..I'm trying to confuse the masses. I want to confuse everyone from knowing the truth. The truth being...that humans are really monkeys..who engage in rectal sex, because it is natural to do so. Other acts that are natural for a human to partake in are fece throwing, chasing cars..killing other people who are weaker within their families, so that they have a better chance of surviving. That just about sounds like a good cause to support.
You all represent a truly humane and "noble" cause don't you think? It's obvious from all of your opinions, that you all are not supporting a position..that would bring about the degeneration and degradation of "humanity"..by likening it to the "animal kingdom"
I should be utterly ashamed of myself..😖ad:..🙄
Originally posted by whobdamandog
The problem being..like those who conducted the studies..you're interpreting the behavior..based on your "own personal agenda." You want to have an excuse for the way you are, instead of being responsible for the choices that you've made.Sexual behavior in animals..is not the same as sexual behavior in humans. It's like comparing apples in oranges. Animal act on instinct. They kill weaker animals that are part of their pack for "survival." They eat defication.
The bottom line is that we are not animals my friend, and our behaviors can't be equated to theirs. We don't run around in the wild playing around with our feces..and rubbing our asses against trees. You failed to provide how the rectum, anus, and mouth are reproductive organs my friend..and thus..you've failed in proving your argument of anal sex, oral sex, etc..being natural HUMAN behavior.
Fin
Those who conducted the studies were making observations. I need make no excuses for who or what I am. You came into this thread and felt the need to pretend that you had questions that you wanted answered, rather than to antagonize everyone that doesn't fit into your neatly organized and totally misunderstood concept of the little world you live in. You assuming that these researchers are skewing the facts to fit anyone's "agenda" is what we've all come to expect from someone who thinks the planet is 6000 years old.
Bottom line, we are animals. I suppose you think your god has seperated you from the rest of nature. Small minds think alike, I'm sure. Have you no instincts? Do not react to things that you encounter in unexpected (and non-sexual) ways? You keep talking about eating shit. So, do you shit? Do you consume something..and then eventually have a bowl movement? Animals do that, should we assume that you never take a shit...since you've been created in the image of a perfect god? Animals rear their young, and teach them to function and survive in the world around them. Did your mother squeeze you out and leave you in gods more than capable hands? Or did she teach you right from wrong? Did she not instill you with these morals you feel the need to espouse so often?
I'm not implying that humans and animals exist on the same level of intelligence or even consciousness. I'm sayng we are simply more evolved. Those penguins simply didn't have closed-mind, bigotted penguins to consider when they decided to mate for life.
I'm not trying to remove myself from the consequences of my descisions. Sure, when I stick my dick in another guys ass, it is because I chose to do so. But, the desire to do so was not my choice. I never got beaten, likely I should have been punished more than I was. I was never mentally abused. I have known I was gay since I was 3. Different. That knowledge is based on my deep seeded instincts.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Yes X..I'm trying to confuse the masses. I want to confuse everyone from knowing the truth. The truth being...that humans are really monkeys..who engage in rectal sex, because it is natural to do so. Other acts that are natural for a human to partake in are fece throwing, chasing cars..killing other people who are weaker within their families, so that they have a better chance of surviving. That just about sounds like a good cause to support.You all represent a truly humane and "noble" cause don't you think? It's obvious from all of your opinions, that you all are not supporting a position..that would bring about the degeneration and degradation of "humanity"..by likening it to the "animal kingdom"
I should be utterly ashamed of myself..😖ad:..🙄
All of these things have happened in the history of human kind. We all know the stories of Romans leaving babies in the woods for the wolves to eat, because they couldn't afford to care for them. Ancient Celts used to smear shit on their faces before battles. Why do these things no longer happen? Surely, even in your own limited world view of 6000 years, humankind has learned and evolved into a species that need not do these things anymore. Even today, in parts of Africa, tribes have a custom of placing a pile of shit on the head of a woman, to show that she is lower than the ground that men walk on....
You're equating gay sex to eating shit. And, I'm not sure how much longer that should be allowed to happen.
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Those who conducted the studies were making observations. I need make no excuses for who or what I am.
Then you wouldn't be using the "excuse" of stating that you can't control your behavior. Nor would you make the "excuse" of equating your life to that of an animals.
You came into this thread and felt the need to pretend that you had questions that you wanted answered, rather than to antagonize everyone that doesn't fit into your neatly organized and totally misunderstood concept of the little world you live in.
I came in here to give my stance on a subject. That is the purpose of forums such as these. Stating truths doesn't equate to antagonistic behavior. It's just that you've been professing lies as truths for so long, that when the truth comes in and takes you out of this euphoric state of self delusion..it's ackun to removing a corner stone from a building. Like the building..the entire foundation of your reality begins to crumble.
You assuming that these researchers are skewing the facts to fit anyone's "agenda" is what we've all come to expect from someone who thinks the planet is 6000 years old.
My assumptions have nothing to do with an individual's abiltiy to view evidence without bias. Clearly you have a personal agenda regarding these studies, as do many others. The agenda is about your own self fulfillment..and being able to justify any type of un-natural and degenerative behavior that your heart desires.
Bottom line, we are animals. I suppose you think your god has seperated you from the rest of nature. Small minds think alike, I'm sure. Have you no instincts? Do not react to things that you encounter in unexpected (and non-sexual) ways? You keep talking about eating shit. So, do you shit? Do you consume something..and then eventually have a bowl movement? Animals do that, should we assume that you never take a shit...since you've been created in the image of a perfect god? Animals rear their young, and teach them to function and survive in the world around them. Did your mother squeeze you out and leave you in gods more than capable hands? Or did she teach you right from wrong? Did she not instill you with these morals you feel the need to espouse so often?I'm not implying that humans and animals exist on the same level of intelligence or even consciousness. I'm sayng we are simply more evolved. Those penguins simply didn't have closed-mind, bigotted penguins to consider when they decided to mate for life.
I'm not trying to remove myself from the consequences of my descisions. Sure, when I stick my dick in another guys ass, it is because I chose to do so. But, the desire to do so was not my choice. I never got beaten, likely I should have been punished more than I was. I was never mentally abused. I have known I was gay since I was 3. Different. That knowledge is based on my deep seeded instincts.
It's clear that that you believe yourself to be an animal. And far be it from me to attempt to convince you otherwise, but just remember this my friend..before you completely embrace your animal "instincts.."
"To live by the sword is to die by the sword"
"To live like an animal is to die like an animal"
You have a choice to live whichever way you please..but just make sure you are prepared to face the consequences of these choices my friend.
Fin
My responses are in bold, inside your quote
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Then you wouldn't be using the "excuse" of stating that you can't control your behavior. Nor would you make the "excuse" of equating your life to that of an animals.Again, I make no excuses. Simply illustrating hte answers to your questions. You assume I am making excuses, by using my words in your own way...and knowing that I won't back down.
I came in here to give my stance on a subject. That is the purpose of forums such as these. Stating truths doesn't equate to antagonistic behavior. It's just that you've been professing lies as truths for so long, that when the truth comes in and takes you out of this euphoric state of self delusion..it's ackun to removing a corner stone from a building. Like the building..the entire foundation of your reality begins to crumble.
My reality is not crumbling. Nor is yours. I leave it to you and anyone else that comes along to view this thread, to see you have your ass handed to you over and over and over again. The numbers talk my friend. Perhaps you think you are the only one with the courage to say the things you think out loud. But, I find that hard to believe. You're alone...so you lie, and claim false victory in a situation where no victory is to be had. The number of people who have graciously called you on your bullshit speaks for itself. The only one who lives in a pretend world is you
My assumptions have nothing to do with an individual's abiltiy to view evidence without bias. Clearly you have a personal agenda regarding these studies, as do many others. The agenda is about your own self fulfillment..and being able to justify any type of un-natural and degenerative behavior that your heart desires.
Your assumptions have everything to do with your POV. They allow you to live in a pretend world...and carry on these arguments, despite being proven wrong by practically every person that engages you in discussion. If being an upright human being involves being as informed as you are, then I choose to be an ignorant sodomite, desitined to burn in hell. NOW, THAT'S A CHOICE
It's clear that that you believe yourself to be an animal. And far be it from me to attempt to convince you otherwise, but just remember this my friend..before you completely embrace your animal "instincts.."
"To live by the sword is to die by the sword"
"To live like an animal is to die like an animal"You have a choice to live whichever way you please..but just make sure you are prepared to face the consequences of these choices my friend.
Oh, I am an animal. And so are you. I do embrace my instincts, the ones that do no harm to anyone else. I would die by the sword any day, to defend what I believe in. But, people like you won't be holding that sword. People like you don't have the courage to say these things to my face. You hide behind your computer screen and profess rhetoric that you wouldn't have the balls to say to my face, or any other gay man. You prefer to quietly sit on the other side of your TV and silently agree with people who stand outside gay funerals with signs saying "FAGS BURN IN HELL", wishing you had the balls to do it too. Of course, that's just my opinion, as I'm sure we'll never meet, face to face to prove the theory.
Fin
Originally posted by whobdamandog
The last and weakest of the three rebuttals. Not only did you once again dodge most of the points with abuse of debate logic..you failed to even directly respond in your own words to most of what I posted. Most of what you've taken..is just cut and pasted stuff from Backfire, Wonderer, and several others. Oh well..you did your best, that's all that counts..shall we begin?
First, using logic to evaluate whether or not an argument is valid, its premises true, and its conclusion sound is a proper way to debate. I understand this may be a foreign concept to one who resorts to childish insults.
Second, I only quoted BackFire and Wonderer259 in my last post. BackFire and Wonderer259 do not equate to "BackFire, Wonderer, and several others."
Moreover, quoting a retort instead of composing one which states the same information is perfectly acceptable.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
You made the assumption that I claimed myself as being an authority on Christianity. I never said such a thing. I just gave my own personal opinion. Real silly point anyway..as it had nothing to do with the actual topic. And once again, demonstrates your inability to debate with me about said topic.
I did not assume that you claimed to be an authority on Christianity. Clearly, you are missing the point: You argued that the dictionary defines Buddhism as a religion, therefore Buddhism is a religion. However, the dictionary also defines Roman Catholics as Christians, but you do not believe Roman Catholics to be Christians. You cannot have it both ways; either the dictionary is not authoritative, or you have committed the logic fallacy of Slothful Induction, and are a hypocrite.
You have yet to answer Wonderer259's question. Allow me to rephrase the question and pose it to you again, "Does the People's Republic of China have the authority to declare Buddhism a science, because it has control over Tibet, yes or no?" Again, you cannot have it both ways; either a government is not authority on what is and is not a religion, or a government can declare anything to be a religion, or any religion to be a cult, fantasy, and so forth.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Now you answer my question Adam..(please do so with your own words)Are the Pope, Dalai Lama supreme authorities as to what is/isn't classified as a Religion?
The Dalai Lama is an authority on Buddhism. Likewise, he is an authority on what Buddhism is and what it is not. Similarly, the Pope is an authority on Catholicism. Likewise, he is an authority on what Catholicism is and what it is not. Are the Dalai Lama and the Pope authorities on what is and is not classified as a religion? No. However, they are authorities on their respective belief systems and whether or not they are a philosophy or a religion.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
The dictionary does not equate to being the highest Authority on way thing are defined..neither is the government for that matter. But based on all the evidence provided within this thread, how the hell does the Dalai Lama?You sound like a fanatical religious nut Adam. Only someone who indoctrinated with in some sort of cult like "religion"..would believe that a little man in a funny robe and hat, is the Supreme authority when it comes to defining things. Another question for you bud..who gives the Dalai Lama his "authority" Adam?
(note* If you answer "He does" then you'll only prove my point about you being indoctrinated)
It is the function of his role as Dalai Lama to be an authority on Buddhism, just as it is the function of the role of the Pope to be an authority on Catholicism, and a U.S. Supreme Court Judge to be an authority on the Constitution of the United States.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Simple stuff to understand bud..you are truly begin to worry me here bud. The site is approved by the Dalai Lama!!! If he didn't believe that Buddhism was a religion. He would not have allowed them to put that in his own damn website!!!
Dalai Lama XIVBuddhism is not a religion, but rather a science of mind.
Simple enough for you?
Originally posted by whobdamandog
You want examples of your silly arguments..refer to your above rebuttal. As well as the last few pages you posted on. You are clearly delusional if you are still unable to accept Buddhism as being a Religion.
In other words, you cannot point out where I have committed the Straw Man fallacy.
However, I see you are still committing the logic fallacy of Ad Hominem Abusive:
Originally posted by whobdamandog
You do. It's quite sad, with each post, you continue to set yourself up to look foolish again. Stop posting..while you still have some time to save face.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Could you provide the name and lead researcher of said study?
B. Mustanski, Ph.D.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Were the chromosomes found in both homosexuals and heterosexuals?
Yes.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
If so how often were they found in both?
Over 60% of the participants, compared to less than 50% expected by chance.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
What were the conditions of the study?
Researchers examined stretches of DNA.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Was the study just done in males, or did females participate in the study as well?
Males. The study is being replicated in females.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Did any of the individuals suffer from any type of abusive emotional or sexual histories?Did any of the individuals suffer from any type of genetic conditions?
This information was not disclosed about the participants. Nor is it relevant, as it would not affect a DNA sequence inside the nucelus of a chromosome.
Originally posted by Whobdamandog
I did answer the question..an individual's position, does not carry some mystical authority over the "Authorities" it is subjected to. Simple as that.
In other words, your answer is, "yes, the People's Republic of China is allowed to claim Buddhism is or isn't a religion because it controls Tibet and yes, by default, the United States of America is free to claim Christianity and all forms of it are officially a psychological experiment, making it truth."
Just so long as your stance is clear.
By the way, there is an 'A' in my name, not an 'O'. Wonderer is an entirely different person.
Originally posted by whobdamandogFor someone who often tries to decry others for "strawmanning" you do it a lot. The irony wasn't in you saying that others are trying to mislead and confuse people - I don't think you are, you probably actually believe the relative drivel you spout. It was in you saying others don't put "anything credible on the table", and throw out a few random numbers to support their "moral agenda" and hopes that no one will "catch them in a lie."
Yes X..I'm trying to confuse the masses. I want to confuse everyone from knowing the truth. The truth being...that humans are really monkeys..who engage in rectal sex, because it is natural to do so. Other acts that are natural for a human to partake in are fece throwing, chasing cars..killing other people who are weaker within their families, so that they have a better chance of surviving. That just about sounds like a good cause to support.You all represent a truly humane and "noble" cause don't you think? It's obvious from all of your opinions, that you all are not supporting a position..that would bring about the degeneration and degradation of "humanity"..by likening it to the "animal kingdom"
I should be utterly ashamed of myself..😖ad:..🙄
Originally posted by whobdamandog😑 This is either worded incredibly badly or you simply know absolutely nothing about even the most basic human genetics...
Were the chromosomes found in both homosexuals and heterosexuals? If so how often were they found in both?
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
For someone who often tries to decry others for "strawmanning" you do it a lot.
Case in point:
Originally posted by whobdamandog
I did answer the question..an individual's position, does not carry some mystical authority over the "Authorities" it is subjected to. Simple as that.
The above is a strawman argument. No one has claimed that anyone, specifically the Dalai Lama, has any sort of divine or mystical authority that supercedes legal authority. Only that they have logical expertise over their subject, the example being the Dalai Lama and Tibetan Buddhism, and that no legal authority can logically supercede their expertise.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
First, using logic to evaluate whether or not an argument is valid, its premises true, and its conclusion sound is a proper way to debate.
When used correctly..and not for the sake of dodging obvious answers to simple questions. This type of behavior, has been demonstrated by you throughout this debate and many others.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
understand this may be a foreign concept to one who resorts to childish insults.
No one has insulted you Adam. Your position boils down to this:
Buddhism is not a Relgion..because the Dalai Lama says so
That is foolish and child like argument. <--this is the Truth.
Originally posted by Adam Poe
I did not assume that you claimed to be an authority on Christianity. Clearly, you are missing the point:
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Personally as I've stated in many other threads. I don't believe in Roman Catholicism being true "Christianity."
Originally posted by Adam Poe
What qualifies you as an authority on who is and is not a true Christian?
Originally posted by Adam Poe
You argued that the dictionary defines Buddhism as a religion, therefore Buddhism is a religion. However, the dictionary also defines Roman Catholics as Christians, but you do not believe Roman Catholics to be Christians. You cannot have it both ways; either the dictionary is not authoritative, or you have committed the logic fallacy of Slothful Induction, and are a hypocrite.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
In this particular scenario..not only do we have the GOVERNMENT classifying it as a religion. But we also have DICTIONARIES and ENCYCLOPEDIAS classifying it as a religion!!!Making you look even more foolish, is the fact that the DALAI LAMA'S OWN WEBSITE REFERENCES BUDDHISM AS A RELIGION.
Originally posted by Adam Poe
Does the People's Republic of China have the authority to declare Buddhism a science, because it has control over Tibet, yes or no?"
Originally posted by whobdamandog
The Dalai Lama's spoken word has no authority over other's interpretation of what his "belief system" can be represented as. Simple as that.
Originally posted by Adam Poe
The Dalai Lama is an authority on Buddhism. Likewise, he is an authority on what Buddhism is and what it is not. Similarly, the Pope is an authority on Catholicism.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
..an individual's position, does not carry some mystical authority over the "Authorities" it is subjected to. Simple as that.
My argument is supported by your response:
Originally posted by Adam Poe
Are the Dalai Lama and the Pope authorities on what is and is not classified as a religion? No.
Thus the only true "authority" that both the Dalai Lama and the Pope have..is that given to them by those whom allow them to practice their beliefs.
Originally posted by Adam Poe
It is the function of his role as Dalai Lama to be an authority on Buddhism, just as it is the function of the role of the Pope to be an authority on Catholicism, and a U.S. Supreme Court Judge to be an authority on the Constitution of the United States.
And just like a Supreme court judge, the Dalai Lama/Pope have no more "Authority" than what is given to them by their Governments.
And just like a Supreme court judge, they must abide by the written laws and regulations given to them by the Government. In this case these regulations represent how a religion is defined.
Originally posted by Adam Poe
Dalai Lama XIVBuddhism is not a religion, but rather a science of mind.
Simple enough for you?
taken from His Holiness's website
http://www.tibet.com/Buddhism/budintro.html
Buddhism became Tibet's state religion only later.
Much like yourself, your "God" is a liar. Particularly since his own web site contradicts what he has stated.
Originally posted by Adam Poe
In other words, you cannot point out where I have committed the Straw Man fallacy.However, I see you are still committing the logic fallacy of Ad Hominem Abusive:
Adam this entire argument on BUDDHISM commits Straw Man fallacy..seeing as how the topic of this thread is HOMOSEXUALITY..give it up bud...🙄
However there is one reasonable comparison we can make between the two arguments..you've failed just as much in proving your position on this topic, as you have in the original topic of the thread.
Fin.
Originally posted by Captain Fantastic
Again, I make no excuses.
Excuse 1:
Originally posted by Captain Fantastic
I am an animal.
Excuse 2:
Originally posted by Captain Fantastic
Sure, when I stick my dick in another guys ass, it is because I chose to do so. But, the desire to do so was not my choice.
Excuse 3:
Originally posted by Captain Fantastic
We all know the stories of Romans leaving babies in the woods for the wolves to eat, because they couldn't afford to care for them. Ancient Celts used to smear shit on their faces before battles.
Excuse 4:
Originally posted by Captain Fantastic
Even today, in parts of Africa, tribes have a custom of placing a pile of shit on the head of a woman, to show that she is lower than the ground that men walk on....
Originally posted by Captain Fantastic
I would die by the sword any day, to defend what I believe in.
Truly my friend..you are supporting a noble belief system.
Fin
Originally posted by Wanderer259
The above is a strawman argument. No one has claimed that anyone, specifically the Dalai Lama, has any sort of divine or mystical authority that supercedes legal authority
Originally posted by Adam Poe
How many times must it be explained to you that an appeal to authority is appropriate IF the person is qualified to have an expert opinion on the subject? Dictionaries are not authorities on Buddhism, they are authorities on how words are used within a language. Governments are not authorities on Buddhism, they are authorities on creating and enforcing laws. The Dalai Lama is an authority on Buddhism, because he is qualified to have an expert opinion about it.
The laws that the government enforces..allow the Dalai Lama to practice the religion known as Buddhism. They give him this authority. He does not adminster/declare/nor determine what is/isn't a religion. Nor does he give himself the right to"religious freedom." Simple as that.
Unless there is some other authority higher than that of the government..you all tell me? To what higher authority than Government does the Dalai Lama receive his "authority"?